On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 15:34:41 -0400, "Dan Johnson"
<danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:

>"John Jones" <jjones[at]hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:eofggvg10vu5ga181iarnea90b06g8nrfa[at]4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 07:11:49 -0400, "Dan Johnson"
>> <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
>> >> Is it your position that Apple's changes would have benefitted the P4?
>> >
>> >Some of them at least.
>>
>> The actual implement that Apple made or the ideas?
>
>The actual implementation. The *least* they could have done
>is use the new build on Intel.

How do you know that it would work? While I'm not an expert I think
that what would work for the G5 probably wouldn't work for the P4.

>> >Often, things that are obvious when explained in English are devilishly
>> >hard to do in code.
>>
>> It is your opinion that Apple was able to implement this devilishly
>> difficult coding in a short period of time where the GCC developers
>> were not for the past three years? Come on Dan, you've got to do
>> better than this
>
>Well, no, I don't. You've only to look at the software out there
>to see that most products, if not all, do not have every feature
>or improvement imaginable for them. Even mature products like
>GCC.

What I question is how you can credit Apple for doing in a short time
what others haven't done for at least three years.

>This notion you hae that any product more than few years old
>must be unimprovable is rather hard to understand.

No wonder you know so much about strawman...you just keep building
them. I never made such a claim. I can't even credit this strawman as
a nice try.

jj

"John Jones" <jjones[at]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f56hgvoisi049b5k68k0p5c1d6caj00lo0[at]4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 15:34:41 -0400, "Dan Johnson"
> <danieljohnson[at]vzavenue.net> wrote:
> >> The actual implement that Apple made or the ideas?
> >
> >The actual implementation. The *least* they could have done
> >is use the new build on Intel.
>
> How do you know that it would work? While I'm not an expert I think
> that what would work for the G5 probably wouldn't work for the P4.

I am assuming a basic level of competence on Apple's part.

[snip]
> >> It is your opinion that Apple was able to implement this devilishly
> >> difficult coding in a short period of time where the GCC developers
> >> were not for the past three years? Come on Dan, you've got to do
> >> better than this
> >
> >Well, no, I don't. You've only to look at the software out there
> >to see that most products, if not all, do not have every feature
> >or improvement imaginable for them. Even mature products like
> >GCC.
>
> What I question is how you can credit Apple for doing in a short time
> what others haven't done for at least three years.

I credit it because Apple says they've done it. I see no reason
to believe they are lying on the point, do you?

> >This notion you hae that any product more than few years old
> >must be unimprovable is rather hard to understand.
>
> No wonder you know so much about strawman...you just keep building
> them.

:D

> I never made such a claim. I can't even credit this strawman as
> a nice try.

Well, perhaps you could tell me what notion it is that makes
it hard for you to accept that Apple has made improvements in
GCC's front end?